Thursday, May 22, 2008

Here's what Katie believes that we should conclude from the California Supreme Court decision:

Minnesotans can draw two lessons from the California decision. First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee. The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Opponents sometimes slammed this dual prohibition as mean-spirited, but the California decision now reveals it to be far-sighted.

Second, the California decision vindicates Minnesotans who argue that a constitutional amendment is the only way to safeguard traditional marriage. During the 2006 debate, then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and OutFront Minnesota both maintained that the amendment was unnecessary, because our state already has a "defense of marriage" act and because the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected same-sex marriage in a 1971 case.

Vindicate. She uses the word twice. Vindicate means show to be right by providing justification or proof. Frankly, Katie's got a lot of damn gall to use that word to describe her petty, venal, and sanctimonious view of the world.

Parenthetically, Edina boys and girls, this is the proposed constitutional amendment that Geoff Michel said that he supported, although he was "open to the idea" of civil unions, at least at a presentation at Bethlehem Lutheran Church a couple of winters ago. Either Michel was entirely ignorant of what the proposal contained, or he thought that the voters were too stupid to understand what was afoot. Neither scenario reflects very well on the senator.

From Katie's two conclusions, she has two predictions:

First, citizens who once favored more benefits for gay couples may begin to oppose them, knowing now that expanded benefits and same-sex marriage constitutionally go hand in hand.

Second, support may grow for amendments that enshrine traditional marriage in state constitutions. In California, citizens will likely have a chance to vote on such an amendment in November. Before their state's high court tossed out California marriage laws, voters there might have paid the subject little heed, confident that they had found middle ground.

Katie thinks that the middle grounders are all going to break her way. That not so much prediction as a white-knuckled prayer.

But here's the big finish from the column:

Anyone who has followed the abortion debate knows what happens when a court cuts out the middle ground, as the U.S. Supreme Court did on abortion 35 years ago in Roe vs. Wade. Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people's rights.

Please read that over a couple of times, boys and girls.

[hysterical laughter continuing for several minutes]

According to Katie, "toxic social division" occurs whenever we disagree with Katie. The idea that Katie yearns for the middle ground is so farcical, so ludicrous, so patently absurd that you have to question her attachment to reality. Well, Spot always has, but this certainly makes his case.

In Katie's Wonder World, when somebody else gets rights, Katie loses rights, apparently because she loses control over these people. That's why people like Katie love children so much: while they are minors they are under your complete control.